Judge deals NSA defeat on bulk phone collection..NSA phone program likely unconstitutional

[idiom]

Nobody and they will still do it. But if it is ruled unconstitutional and illegal, the feds will not be able to use any evidence obtained this way in court against anyone.

They don't use it any way. They use it to find evidence they could plausibly have come up with other ways. That is how the program remained secret.

 

[69360]

Drone strikes do not require evidence or courts.

Against US citizens they do. Or should.

haha, if you get a trial

Unless they rendition you, you get a trial.

They don't use it any way. They use it to find evidence they could plausibly have come up with other ways. That is how the program remained secret.

The NSA will probably keep doing this.

 

[Occam's Banana]

f it is ruled unconstitutional and illegal, the feds will not be able to use any evidence obtained this way in court against anyone.

Oh, yes, they will - parallel construction.

FTA:

The Special Operations Division (SOD) of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration advises DEA agents to practice parallel construction when creating criminal cases against Americans that are actually based on NSA warrantless surveillance.

 

[DamianTV]

Im sure we will be told "The NSA it too big to Jail"

But but but... think of all the NSA employees! Our Unemployment Rate will go up at least 5%!

 

[devil21]

Stayed pending

I wish one of these District court judges that rules various spying, police state actions (Patriot Act), Obamacare, etc as unconstitutional would have the balls to not stay their order pending appeal and force the gov't to either HALT the programs or continue them in blatant violation of the court order. But no, they always stay their own order pending appeal. And of course that means the higher courts will eventually rule it constitutional, a la Robert's Obamacare "tax" decision. It's the same damn playbook over and over and nothing changes.

eta: HOLLYWOOD beat me to it.

 

[mczerone]

Nobody and they will still do it. But if it is ruled unconstitutional and illegal, the feds will not be able to use any evidence obtained this way in court against anyone.

They don't "use" it as evidence now. But they still use it - it's called parallel construction. They submit proof of "terrorism" or something to local police, tell them to dig up actual evidence of some crime in a legal manner, and to forget that the feds were ever there.

 

[Czolgosz]

rofl. Doesn't mean shit.

 

[mczerone]

Good news-

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-192758776.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge says the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. The judge put his decision on hold pending a nearly certain government appeal.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon has granted a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange, concluding they were likely to prevail in their constitutional challenge. Leon ruled Monday that the two men are likely to be able to show that their privacy interests outweigh the government's interest in collecting the data. Leon says that means that massive collection program is an unreasonable search under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

The collection program was disclosed by former National Security Agency systems analyst Edward Snowden, provoking a heated debate over civil liberties.

From an interview with the Judge: "Umm, yeah, you see, ah, you win, and the relief you wanted was for them to stop, but I'm not going to stop them. So you win. But you don't get anything. And they lose, but they don't have to stop doing that thing that I think will be proven unconstitutional. So I'm just a big dick that doesn't actually want to stop them from doing things that I think are bad, and they'll just appeal it anyway, so I'll let the next judge actually do something about it. Or not. Whatever. I have to go play golf."

 

[mczerone]

I wish one of these District court judges that rules various spying, police state actions (Patriot Act), Obamacare, etc as unconstitutional would have the balls to not stay their order pending appeal and force the gov't to either HALT the programs or continue them in blatant violation of the court order. But no, they always stay their own order pending appeal. And of course that means the higher courts will eventually rule it constitutional, a la Robert's Obamacare "tax" decision. It's the same damn playbook over and over and nothing changes.

eta: HOLLYWOOD beat me to it.

Roberts' Concurring opinion, circa 2016: You see, the eavesdropping isn't a search, it's a peek. And peeks are Constitutional, while searches aren't. But when the peeks are applied, they are searching. But that doesn't matter here, because until they happen, they are just peeks. Now bend over to be searched. And fined. No wait, taxed. No, fined. Which one did we say was the okay one again? Let me search for that...

 

[fr33]

Ed Snowden the constitution is a traitor. (According to many commentors I've read)

 

[Mani]

I liked this:

60 minutes has to feel pretty shitty right now.

First their Behnghazi thing was a sham.

Now they release an NSA INFOMERCIAL, and for the few idiots that didn't realize it was an infomercial, this judge points out, shits all illegal.


But I'm sure all the shills at 60 minutes don't care, as they are the gov't mouthpieces after all. It's just looks pathetic, I'm almost embarrassed for how stupid they look.



Does the media even care that they look so transparent?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Nobody and they will still do it. But if it is ruled unconstitutional and illegal, the feds will not be able to use any evidence obtained this way in court against anyone.

As already noted by others, assuming you even get trial, it won't matter.

Especially with a jury of your "peers", who, like the vast majority of the AmeriKan public, despise freedom and will happily lock you up if the government tells them to.

 

[MRK]

JUDGE RULES NSA PHONE SPYING PROGRAM LIKELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 

[mrsat_98]

Nobody and they will still do it. But if it is ruled unconstitutional and illegal, the feds will not be able to use any evidence obtained this way in court against anyone.

Duck Dude gets arrested for murder of "Cop GF" due to location data from phone, will the evidence get excluded ?

 

[Lucille]

Court Reverses Decision Against NSA Bulk Collection on Standing Issues
Doesn’t rule on constitutionality of Patriot Act surveillance
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/28/court-reverses-decision-against-nsa-bulk

In 2013, noted conservative political troublemaker Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch filed suit against the National Security Agency (NSA) arguing that the mass metadata collection of Americans happening under the aegis of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was illegal. He won his case in the district court covering Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, his victory was stripped away today when the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, on technical standing issues, and sent it back to the trial court. The issue at hand, as has always been a problem with these lawsuits, is proving that any one particular identifiable person has had his or her metadata collected under this program, something the Obama administration has managed to keep from verifying. Without proving that the government has collected your metadata, how can you sue the government to stop it?

That’s what happened here. The judges did not rule wither or not the mass metadata collection was legal or constitutional. Rather, as one judge noted, “Plaintiffs lack direct evidence that records involving their calls have been collected.”

Regardless, the days are numbered for this particular type of bulk surveillance. Congress allowed Section 215 of the Patriot Act to sunset and replaced it with the USA Freedom Act in June. The Freedom Act doesn’t eliminate bulk metadata collection entirely, but requires more restrictive search terms and forbids grabbing all records from a phone or internet service provider. But the Freedom Act gave the NSA six months to keep collecting data under the old system, and despite Section 215 expiring, they’ve said they’re going have their six months.

Read more about today's decision, and the decision itself, here.

"The days are numbered," eh? If only.

...if the NSA ceased to exist today, it would not make any appreciable difference in the surveillance activities of the United States government.

 

[timosman]

bump